The pattern is so similar to every other thread---bait I think Andy Biggs calls it. Lessee. Throw something out there under the noble premise of sincere discussion and then attack, every possible nit, hyper-sensitive criticism, often based on hasty generalizations, and now that I think of it----misleading statements. That's like misleading advertising!

Yeah, buying a product doesn't take much skill---maybe with a top-end MFDB it shows you have the business acumen and means to make such a purchase. But at least someone who has taken that step (many of us have done it several times and with years of experience with MFDBs---what a concept) can actually relate personal experience (real experience not a few hundred exposures or test shots at the counter) with medium format digital and perhaps, just perhaps, in a very positive manner help other photographers with positive advice, experiences, workarounds, etc. to actually go out and make images with their personal choice of equipment.

It seems like someone wants to have all types of safety warning stickers on the IQ back then will bitch when it isn't in every language known to man or that the stickers don't look right. Then again Phase could have an external antenna so that same person can then bitch and moan that someone could poke their eye out. Never mind he isn't going to buy the thing - just Google it.

simply do not reply to the posts of this narrow-minded repressed bourgeois and the pain will come to an end sooner or later…

Hmmm .. all of that for pointing out a possible safety issue. Creating a WiFi network less than an inch from the eyes is uncharted territory.

Mirriam Webster Dictionary:

Bourgois:1: of, relating to, or characteristic of the social middle class2: marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity3: dominated by commercial and industrial interests

There's a big difference here though. The iPhone is not (primarily) designed to be used as a wifi router when held against one's head.

Yes - the iPhone can be used as a wifi hotspot to share its cellular connection with other devices over wifi, this isn't typically done whilst holding the thing against one's head though.

Routers need to pump out one hell of a big signal compared to the power it takes to receive that signal.

That is correct, and on top of that the Cell phone is about 3 inches from the cornea and iris while the IQ2 is about 0.5 inches away. With the same WiFi output power 0.5 inches is about 10 times more due to the omni directional emanation of the signal.

The formula for signal falloff is 1/r2

Here is a schematic to illustrate the exposure difference between being less than an inch away to several inches.

Both the Cone and the intensity are very very different.

Risks from high proximity to a WiFi source should not be dismissed.

On top of that the voltage differential from the front of the eye to the back of the eye is far higher when close and almost insignificant even just7 or 8 inches away.

On top of that the voltage differential from the front of the eye to the back of the eye is far higher when close and almost insignificant even just7 or 8 inches away.

Well, let's do this:- for owners/users worried about close proximity of emitter [to their head/body]: tether, with USB or Firewire- for operation at a distance, or to remotely use the camera [and digiback]: WiFi

Problem solved.

Phase owners/users can use WiFi for 'on the spot' confirmation and remote control.

If there is a need to do BOTH tether AND remote confirmation [it could happen!], I doth believe Leaf has this covered with Capture Pilot App: "allows you to use your iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch to remotely view images & trigger your camera."- and no close proximity radiation from the back!- what will they think of next!

Well, let's do this:- for owners/users worried about close proximity of emitter [to their head/body]: tether, with USB or Firewire- for operation at a distance, or to remotely use the camera [and digiback]: WiFi

Problem solved.

Phase owners/users can use WiFi for 'on the spot' confirmation and remote control.

If there is a need to do BOTH tether AND remote confirmation [it could happen!], I doth believe Leaf has this covered with Capture Pilot App: "allows you to use your iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch to remotely view images & trigger your camera."- and no close proximity radiation from the back!- what will they think of next!

Pascal

Obviously turning it off is an option, but and external antenna that could be used somewhat removed from the eye and face would be a good option.

Also as I previously suggested having the option of having a quick to access button that fires up WiFi when the user wants it and have it turn off when they peer back in the camera.Hove it turn off when there is activity on the camera.. as an option. Half press the shutter for example.

Rather than just turn it off adding some precautionary functionality would be better.

There's a big difference here though. The iPhone is not (primarily) designed to be used as a wifi router when held against one's head.

Sorry but this too is quite misconstrued.1. Neither device is technically a "router" (iphone or IQ2) but if you wanted to split hairs, the iPhone could be argued as one while the IQ is not.2. VOIP apps are abundant on the iPhone and they specifically use WiFi (and WiFi only) whilst holding a device against your face. 5 years running and no ones dead.3. Removing the iPhone from the equation, chances are you have (or had) a 2.4Ghz cordless phone well before a cell phone with wireless capabilities. This is the same communication frequency that WiFi uses. The 1.9Ghz cordless phones were introduced in 1998 in the US and my educated guess is that no conclusive health issues can be attributed to their use in the 15 years they’ve been around. 4. The health concerns are not directly in regard to the signal frequency but the radiation from the device. Wifi is between .1 and .5 watts, so one can argue that a cellphone alone is 40 times more dangerous than talking over a wifi VOIP device without cellular capabilities (cellular GSM phones can reach 2 watts)… or dare I say, 40 times more dangerous than an IQ260 *gasp*

...on top of that the Cell phone is about 3 inches from the cornea and iris while the IQ2 is about 0.5 inches away. With the same WiFi output power 0.5 inches is about 10 times more due to the omni directional emanation of the signal.

This too is seems misunderstood and a bit of a backtrack from the previous claim of being "uncharted territory". We can’t foget Canon and Nikon which have been doing it for years. Regarding the 2.5" difference (which you've speculated without any specific documentation) it hardly seems like a difference one can claim to be “uncharted”; different perhaps but not necessarily relevant as it is presumably (Phase One aren’t stupid) cleared by the FCC in order be sold in the US.Arguing the signal falloff for the undocumented 2.5” figure seems arbitrary. True, the inverse square law applies to WiFi signal strength, however not as you are indicating due to the vast number of undocumented variable and the actual communication signal frequency is not the direct concern. First, the “Ouptu Power” and “Signal” are related but different so your sentence is a rather misleading. Secondly Wifi radiation is between .1 and .5 watts on a 2.4Ghz system (as previously noted and can be much less when antenna placement, device geometry and shielding come into play). Again this is at the very MOST 1/6th the amount of “dangerous” radiation as the average cell phone and the inverse square law does not apply directly to the radiation only signal strength (yes these are different).

At the end of the day, 15 minutes in the sun is more of a concern for your health. This is a product approved by the governments of the world as safe to sell. If you’re worried, don’t let your infant child use the $20k camera lest they be effected by the common radiation that surrounds us daily and don’t leave your face (cornea or iris) on the IQ260 for more than 525949 minutes (the amount of time it would take for .1 watt to effect your skin).

Sorry but this too is quite misconstrued.1. Neither device is technically a "router" (iphone or IQ2) but if you wanted to split hairs, the iPhone could be argued as one while the IQ is not.

No one is talking about a router here. The IQ2 creates a WiFi network. A WiFi network sends out a continuous signal so as to permitaccess. While it is not doing the work of a router the WiFi signal is the same.

The FCC clearly recommends maintaining a distance between the face, eyes and body from a WiFi source.

Incase you missed the earlier post:

Quote

Information for the User Safety Notices USA—FCC and FAA The FCC with its action in ET Docket 96-8 has adopted a safety standard for human exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy emitted by FCC certified equipment. The adapter meets the Human Exposure limits found in OET Bulletin 65, supplement C, 2001, and ANSI/IEEE C95.1, 1992. Proper operation of this radio according to the instructions found in this manual will result in exposure substantially below the FCC’s recommended limits. The following safety precautions should be observed: Do not touch or move antenna while the unit is transmitting or receiving. Do not hold any component containing the radio such that the antenna is very close or touching any exposed parts of the body, especially the face or eyes, while transmitting. Do not operate the radio or attempt to transmit data unless the antenna is connected; this behavior may cause damage to the radio. Use in specific environments: The use of wireless devices in hazardous locations is limited by the constraints posed by the safety directors of such environments. The use of wireless devices on airplanes is governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The use of wireless devices in hospitals is restricted to the limits set forth by each hospital. Antenna Use In order to comply with FCC RF exposure limits, low gain integrated antennas should be located at a minimum distance of 20 cm (8 inches) or more from the body of all persons. High-gain, wall-mount, or mast-mount antennas are designed to be professionally installed and should be located at a minimum distance of 30 cm (12 inches) or more from the body of all persons. Please contact your professional installer, VAR, or antenna manufacturer for proper installation requirements.

Antenna Warnings Warning: To comply with the FCC and ANSI C95.1 RF exposure limits, it is recommended that for the adapter installed in a desktop or portable computer, the antenna for this adapter to be installed so as to provide a separation distance of at least 20 cm (8 inches) from all persons. It is recommended that the user limit exposure time if the antenna is positioned closer than 20 cm (8 inches).

That is a moot point as we've already established devices approved by the FCC (again the iPhone) uphold no such standard.Perhaps it's recommended but its clearly not mandatory so it's a nonissue and we can move on.

That is a moot point as we've already established devices approved by the FCC (again the iPhone) uphold no such standard.Perhaps it's recommended but its clearly not mandatory so it's a nonissue and we can move on.

You linked to several articles regarding safety...This is a quote from one of them

Quote

Prof Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme management committee, said: "Wi-fi exposures are usually very small - the transmitters are low power and some distance from the body.

"They can be near to the body, however, when a laptop is on one's lap and my own view is that just as we encourage young children not to use mobile phones we should also encourage them to use their laptops on a table rather than their lap, if they are going online for a long time."

He recommends caution even with a WiFi device on one's lap. That is much farther away than right up against the eye.Also he is talking about a laptop that is mainly in receiving mode, not sending or creating a WiFi network.

Later in the article:

Quote

"Add to the fact that high-bandwidth wi-fi devices are less likely to be head-mounted and there really is no issue here.

Nearly all articles regarding safety of WiFi bring up the fact that the WiFi devices are far from the body.

A fashion/commercial photographer shooting at a fair pace with 2048×1536 res preview images pumped over the WiFiwould be considered high bandwidth. With this less than an inch from the eye is something to be concerned about.

Proximity is an issue. In tests done by the State of Vermont they showed significant differences when RF was measured in contact to a device and 12 inches away.

While this may protect you from the WIFI radiation, I think such close proximity to Aluminum could be very dangerous. Need to look up studies, but will start a separate thread in the MFDB thread on this.

Is that the regular aluminum foil or do you recommend heavy duty foil? Is generic okay or does only a premium brand like Reynold's Aluminum foil provide the best protection? Is it okay to line our foil-cone hats with soft felt for comfort or will that negate its protective properties from this new dangerous Phase One device? The only thing I don't like is I can no longer hear the voices in my head. I'm hoping it works on trolls too...